Method, system and storage medium for automated independent technical review

ABSTRACT

An exemplary embodiment is a method and system for performing an automated independent technical review. The method includes receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container, determining whether the assay result is within a predetermined parameter, determining whether a review is required if the assay result is not within the predetermined parameter and rejecting the assay result if the review is not required and the assay result is not within the predetermined parameter.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional PatentApplication No. 60/221,438 filed on Jul. 28, 2000, and U.S. ProvisionalPatent Application No. 60/221,018 filed on Jul. 27, 2000, the entirecontents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND

[0002] The management of hazardous waste materials, includingradioactive waste, is important to maintaining the environment.Radioactive waste can be defined as any material that contains or iscontaminated by radionuclides at concentrations or radioactivity levelsgreater than a particular level set by the government. This level set bythe government is based on a determination of what constitutes anunacceptable level of risk to the environment. In addition, radioactivewaste is material that has no foreseen future usefulness. Waste disposalrefers to placing the radioactive waste in approved radioactive wastecontainers, at approved sites, without the intention of retrieval.Making sure that the radioactive waste containers are secure raisesspecial concerns because some nuclear waste materials retain high levelsof radioactivity for thousands of years.

[0003] There are numerous tools that can be used to monitor theradioactive content of waste being disposed of in the radioactive wastecontainers. For example, counters are used to measure the radiation ofthe contents of a radioactive waste container and various otherparameters. Typically, the contents are checked to ensure that they meetvarious regulatory limits as set by the Environmental Protection Agencyand the Department of Energy. Another type of check that is done on thecounter data is a verification that the testing performed by the counterreflects the actual contents of the radioactive waste container. Both ofthese types of checks are currently performed manually and are prone tohuman error. In addition, because of the manual nature of the checking,the process takes a relatively long time and this makes it difficult toprocess and interpret large volumes of data in a timely fashion.

SUMMARY

[0004] An exemplary embodiment is a method and system for performing anautomated independent technical review. The method includes receiving anassay result of a radioactive waste container, determining whether theassay result is within a predetermined parameter, determining whether areview is required if the assay result is not within the predeterminedparameter and rejecting the assay result if the review is not requiredand the assay result is not within the predetermined parameter.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0005] Referring now to the drawings wherein like elements are numberedalike in several FIGURES:

[0006]FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary system for performing anautomated independent technical review.

[0007]FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an exemplary process for performing anautomated independent technical review.

[0008]FIG. 3 depicts an exemplary independent technical review template.

[0009]FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary independent technical review commenttemplate.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0010]FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an exemplary system for performing anautomated independent technical review. The system of FIG. 1 includesuser systems 102 through which a waste analyst will contact a hostsystem 104. In a preferred embodiment, the host system 104 executes aprogram that performs an automated independent technical review. Theuser systems 102 are coupled to a host system 104 via a network 106.Each user system 102 may be implemented using a general-purpose computerexecuting a computer program for carrying out the processes describedherein. The user systems 102 may be personal computers or host attachedterminals. If the user systems 102 are personal computers, theprocessing described herein may be shared by user system 102 and hostsystem 104 by providing an applet to the user system 102.

[0011] Network 106 may be any type of known network including a localarea network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or a global network(e.g., Internet). The user system 102 may be coupled to the host system104 through multiple networks (e.g., intranet and Internet) so that notall user systems 102 are coupled to the host system 104 through the samenetwork. One or more of the user systems 102 and the host system 104 maybe connected to network 106 in a wireless fashion and network 106 may bea wireless network. In a preferred embodiment, network 106 is anintranet and each user system 102 executes a user interface application(e.g., web browser) to contact the host system 104 through the network106. Alternatively, a user system 102 may be implemented using a deviceprogrammed primarily for accessing network 106 such as WebTV.

[0012]FIG. 1 also depicts the sources of data for an automatedindependent technical review in an exemplary embodiment of theinvention. The data can come from a variety of computer systems acrossthe network 122 or the data could come from the storage device 108attached to the host system 104. In an exemplary embodiment, the datarequired for an automated independent technical review is identified andsubsequently gathered into a single, relational database stored on astorage device 108 connected to the host system 104. The itemdescription code data 114 includes a list of valid materials that can bemeasured. The counter data 116 includes the assay results or measurementdata taken by a counter for a particular radioactive waste container.The isotopic measurement data 118 is either data collected using anisotopic measurement system or default regulatory values if nomeasurement data is available. The regulatory data 120 includes limitsset by the government. This automated independent technical review datacan be gathered from locations around the world and then consolidatedinto a single database stored on a storage device 108 connected to thehost system 104. Regulatory data 120, for example, may come from avariety of locations. The automated independent technical review data isgathered in response to a user system 102 request.

[0013] The network 122 used to transfer the automated independenttechnical review data has the same attributes as the network 106described above and could be the same physical network. This network 122may be any type of known network including a local area network (LAN), awide area network (WAN), and a global network (Internet). The automatedindependent technical review data may be transferred to the host system104 through multiple networks (e.g., intranet and Internet) so that notall the automated independent technical review data is transferred tothe host system 104 through the same network. One or more of the remotesystems may be connected to the network 122 in a wireless fashion andnetwork 122 may be a wireless network.

[0014] The host system 104 may be implemented using a server operatingin response to a computer program stored in a storage medium accessibleby the server. The host system 104 may operate as a network server(often referred to as a web server) to communicate with the user systems102. The host system 104 handles sending and receiving information toand from user systems 102 and can perform associated tasks. The hostsystem 104 may also include a firewall to prevent unauthorized access tothe host system 104 and enforce any limitations on authorized access.For instance, an administrator may have access to the entire system andhave authority to modify portions of the system. The firewall may beimplemented using conventional hardware and/or software as is known inthe art.

[0015] The host system 104 also operates as an application server. Thehost system 104 executes one or more computer programs to perform anautomated independent technical review. Processing may be shared by theuser system 102 and the host system 104 by providing an application(e.g., java applet) to the user system 102. Alternatively, the usersystem can include a stand-alone software application for performing aportion of the processing described herein. It is understood thatseparate servers may be used to implement the network server functionsand the applications server functions. Alternatively, the networkserver, the firewall, and the application server can be implemented by asingle server executing computer programs to perform the requisitefunctions.

[0016] In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the hostsystem 104 contains a suite of application programs that create anautomated technical review report. The application programs and asoftware template are used to create a report that contains assayresults, comparison results, and other data regarding a particularradioactive waste container. The comparison results are created usingpredetermined parameters and data values that can include values storedin data files, values or assay results created by a counter system, anddata values calculated by application programs. A comparison test canhave three possible results: (1) “assay acceptable” okay to ship theradioactive waste container; (2) “expert review required” beforeshipping; or (3) “reject” the test results because the data is faulty.If all tests results for a particular container are assay acceptable,then the final disposition on the report will indicate that the assayreview is acceptable. If any test result is “expert review required”, anindependent technical review comment sheet will be generated and thefinal disposition will indicate that the expert review is required.Expert review is defined as a recommendation for human interventionbefore shipping the radioactive waste container. A person is advised toreview the test results and make a determination of the status of theradioactive waste container if the test result is “expert reviewrequired.” If any test result indicates a reject, the final dispositionwill be to reject the assay. If the disposition is reject, generation ofan independent technical review comment sheet will be suppressed.

[0017] In an exemplary embodiment, one of the applications on the hostsystem 104 performs an item description code comparison to determine ifthe material in a radioactive waste container can produce acceptableassay results. The application compares an item description code for aparticular radioactive waste container with a list that contains theitem description codes for the types of materials that can be measuredby a particular counter. If the item description code of the radioactivewaste container is not found, then the result of the comparison will be“expert review required.” Otherwise the output of the comparison is theresult “assay acceptable.” An example of this would be a gamma counter,that generates a gamma radiation assay result, and a radioactive wastecontainer that contains lead. Here, the result would be “expert reviewrequired” because the item description code “lead” would not listed inthe gamma counter list of acceptable item description codes. Lead wouldnot be in the list because, in general, lead is too dense to be measuredby a gamma counter. Note that one skilled in the art can readily obtainthe measurements necessary for use in the tests described herein usingcommercially available measurement equipment, routine experimentationand/or analysis. Further, one skilled in the art can perform the testsand analyses described herein without involving extensiveexperimentation.

[0018] Another application program, in an exemplary embodiment, takesdata from an isotopic measurement system and calculates the ratios ofPu²³⁹ and Pu²⁴⁰. Based on the results of the comparison, the test datais flagged as “assay acceptable” or as “expert review required.” Thereview sheet will print whether the measured isotopics or the defaultisotopics are being used based on whether the relative error for thePu²⁴⁰ is greater than about 70%. If this condition exists or if nomeasured isotopics results are available then the report will displaythat default isotopics are used. In an exemplary embodiment of thisapplication, a weapons grade plutonium test is applied when the defaultisotopics are not used. In this test, the absolute 3-sigma error forPu²⁴⁰ is calculated. The 3-sigma error is added to and subtracted fromthe measured weight percent for Pu²⁴⁰ to produce a range. If theaccepted weapons grade weight percent falls within this range, theresult is “assay acceptable.” If it falls outside of this range the testresult is “expert review required.”

[0019] In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, anotherapplication on the host system 104 performs comparison of assay resultcontainer density data in order to determine if it is within apredetermined parameter. In an exemplary embodiment, the weight and fillheight of a radioactive waste container is used to calculate theradioactive waste container density. If the density is above about 2.5grams per cubic centimeter, the measurement will be deemed not valid andthe result “expert review required” will be generated. Otherwise, theresult will be “assay acceptable.” In an exemplary embodiment, anotherportion of the density comparison involves checking for lumps ofplutonium in the radioactive waste container because lumps can causeerrors in the measurement. This method involves comparison of the Pumass value calculated from the 129.29 kilo-electron volt (“keV”) energyregion and the 413.71 keV energy region. If the ratio of the 413.71 keVmass divided by the 129.29 kV mass exceeds the predetermined parameterof about 2.5, then the test result is “expert review required.”Otherwise the test result is “assay acceptable.”

[0020] Another application on the host system, in an exemplaryembodiment, performs a criticality safety review. The first part of theapplication is the qualification range test. This application looks upthe amount of plutonium found in the assay result, for a particularradioactive waste container, in a table that contains the acceptableranges of plutonium mass or a qualification mass value. The programchecks to see if the assay result for the radioactive waste container isin the acceptable mass range, and, if the radioactive waste containerassay result is not in this range, the comparison result is “reject”,otherwise the result is “assay acceptable.” The second part of thisapplication performs a comparison of the total plutonium mass as apercent of container net weight. If this value exceeds acustomer-specific low qualification mass value, then the assay resultsare “reject assay.” In an exemplary embodiment, the customer-specificlow qualification mass value is about 10%. A third part of thecriticality safety review is a comparison between the total plutoniumequivalent mass measured in a particular radioactive waste container andan acceptable amount for the site as determined by the federalgovernment. If the plutonium equivalent mass is over a certain amount,about 220 grams in an exemplary embodiment, then the measurement is notvalid and the result of the comparison is “reject.” Otherwise the resultof the comparison is “assay acceptable.” The fourth part of thiscriticality safety review application program includes a fissile gramequivalent comparison. This involves converting the mass results of allisotopes identified in a radioactive waste container to fissileequivalent grams of Pu²³⁹. If this Pu²³⁹ equivalent mass exceeds apredetermined limit or parameter, then the assay result is “reject.”Otherwise, the assay result is “assay acceptable.” In an exemplaryembodiment this predetermined limit is about 220 grams for a fissilegram equivalent at about 2 sigma.

[0021] Additionally, the host system 104 application, in an exemplaryembodiment, performs comparisons on nuclide totals to ensure that theyare within certain limits. The first part of the application calculatesthe mass ratio of a first isotope Pu²³⁹ to a second isotope Am²⁴¹. Thenuclide totals results are used to compare the mass of the Pu²³⁹ to themass of Am²⁴¹. If the ratio of the Pu²³⁹ mass to the Am²⁴¹ mass is lessthan about 200, the result will be “expert review required”, otherwisethe result is “assay acceptable.” The next part of the applicationanalyzes the Pu²³⁹ mass to Np²³⁷ mass ratio. The nuclide totals resultsare used to compare the ratio of the Pu²³⁹ mass to Np²³⁷ mass. If theratio of the Pu²³⁹ mass to Np²³⁷ mass is less than about 125, “expertreview required” will be the result, otherwise the result is “assayacceptable.” In addition, the application program, in an exemplaryembodiment, performs additional isotope identification. The nuclidetotals results for Np²³⁷, U²³³, U²³⁵, and U²³⁸ are reviewed to identifypotentially unidentified nuclides. The main energy lines used toidentify these isotopes are listed in the table below. Isotope PeakEnergy Used Np²³⁷ 311.90 keV U²³³ 135.30 keV U²³⁵ 185.72 keV U²³⁸1001.03 keV 

[0022] If the value of the count rate for any of these isotopes isgreater than about 5 times the error, then the test result is “expertreview required”, otherwise the result is “assay acceptable”. If theresults of the isotopic measurement data confirms the presence of Np²³⁷,the Np²³⁷ nuclide totals result test is not performed. If the results ofthe isotopic measurement data confirms the presence of U²³⁵, the U²³⁵nuclide totals result test is not performed.

[0023] In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, anapplication on the host 104 performs a review of segment information inan effort to determine if measurements of individual segments of thedrum are valid. Each segment is reviewed for transmission sourceresults. The transmission source peaks with an energy less than about400 keV are considered the low energy peaks. If the 400 keV transmissionsource peak intensity is less than about 1 percent of the calibratedintensity, the test result is “expert review required.” If a low energytransmission source peak intensity other than the 400 keV peak is lessthan or equal to about 0.1 percent of its calibrated intensity, theresult is “expert review required.” Calibrated intensity means theintensity that the peak was at during the transmission calibration.Another part of the segment application program looks atpulser/reference source results. These results help determine if theradioactive waste container and its matrix are too dense for accuratemass results. Two possible methods are used. Both are outlined here. Thefirst method described uses a reference pulser. This pulser is set at apre-determined energy during calibration. During an assay, this energyis checked to find the pulser peak. If the pulser peak is not found, theresult will be “expert review required.” If the peak is found but thetotal number of counts in the peak is less than about 3,000, “expertreview required” will be the result. The second method uses a referencesource. This method uses a radioactive source that has a known referencesource peak energy. This reference energy peak is searched for and ifthe source peak is not found, “expert review required” will be theresult. If the peak is found, “expert review required” will be theresult if the total counts in the source peak is less than about 50% ofthe calibrated rate. Calibrated rate means the count rate of the sourceor reference peak determined at the time that the transmissioncalibration was performed.

[0024] Still another portion of the application program that reviewssegment information is the live time results. Real time is defined aslive time plus dead time. Live time is the time during an assay that thedetector is available to process counts. Dead time is the time duringwhich the detector electronics are processing a count and areunavailable to collect counts. The live time results are checked foreach segment. If the value of live time divided by real time is lessthan about 0.3, then “expert review required” will be the result. In anexemplary embodiment, the localized concentrations are also analyzed bythis application program. This involves looking at the concentration inthe bottom of the radioactive waste container. If the concentration istoo high then the result is “expert review required.” The bottom twosegments are reviewed, and if the total activity, based on the 413.71keV peak area, in the bottom two segments is greater than about 50% ofthe total activity in the radioactive waste container, then the resultis “expert review required.” A segment is an imaginary horizontal discof the radioactive waste container seen by the detector. In an exemplaryembodiment, a segment is between one half an inch and one inch inheight.

[0025] Storage device 108 may be implemented using a variety of devicesfor storing electronic information such as a file transfer protocol(FTP) server. It is understood that storage device 108 may beimplemented using memory contained in a host system 104 or may be aseparate physical device. Storage device 108 contains a variety ofinformation including an automated independent technical reviewtemplate, the item description code data, and the counter data. Storagedevice 108 may also contain information concerning the submission of thereport request or transmittal of automated independent technical reviewdata (e.g. a user identifier, date and time of submission).

[0026]FIG. 2 is a flowchart of an exemplary process for performing anautomated independent technical review. At step 200 the assay resultsare received and at step 202 the assay results are evaluated in order todetermine if they are within established guidelines. If the assayresults are within the established guidelines, step 204 is performed andthe assay review is accepted and the process is completed. If the assayresults are not within the established guidelines, step 206 is performedin order to determine if a technical review is required. If a technicalis review is required, a technical review comment template that includesthe type of technical review to be performed is created at step 208.Once this comment template is created, the process is complete. If atechnical review is not required, step 210 is performed and the assay isrejected. After step 210 is performed, the process is complete.

[0027]FIG. 3 depicts an exemplary independent technical review template.The review template has a heading “Independent Technical Review Report”302 in order to identify the report type. Next, the review templatecontains information 304 that identifies the particular data beingtested and referred to in the report. In an exemplary embodiment thisincludes item identification which is used to identify the assay datapackage being tested. The identification information 304 also includesan item description code that represents the material that was in theradioactive waste container being tested. The data and time of the assayare also included in order to indicate when the waste package wasassayed. A counter identification is used to determine the assayequipment upon which the waste package was counted. The identificationinformation 304 can also include a sequence number which is used as aunique identifier for that particular set of assay data.

[0028] The review template also includes a section for describing thetest that were performed 306. The review template in FIG. 3 has someexamples of tests that could be performed. Any of the tests describedearlier in reference to FIG. 1 could be listed in this section 306.These tests include determining whether an assay result is within apredetermined parameter. Along with a list of the test performed 306,the review template includes a section for the results 308 of the tests.As discussed in reference to FIG. 1 the results could be “assayacceptable”, “expert review required”, or “reject.” Next, the reviewtemplate contains a space for the final disposition 310 of the test. Ifall tests for the radioactive waste container are “assay acceptable”,then the final disposition 310 will indicate the assay review isacceptable. If any test result is “expert review required”, anindependent technical review comment sheet, as shown in FIG. 4, will begenerated and the final disposition 310 will indicate that technicalreview is required. If the final disposition 310 is “reject”, generationof an independent technical review comment sheet will be suppressed. Inan exemplary embodiment the review template also includes a place forthe independent technical reviewer to sign 312 and date 314 the report.

[0029]FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary independent technical review commenttemplate. The comment template contains a header 402 with the reporttitle, “independent technical review comment sheet.” Next, the commenttemplate contains information 404 that identifies the particular databeing tested and referred to in the report. In an exemplary embodiment,this information is the same as the data described above in reference to304 in FIG. 3. Next, the comment template contains a space to describethe data requiring review 406. This section 406 will contain a list ofthe tests that resulted in the rating “expert review required.” Section408 of the comment template contains space for comments and dispositioninformation. In an exemplary embodiment, the comment template alsoincludes a place for the technical reviewer to sign 410 and date 412 thereport.

[0030] As described above, the user system 102 and the host system 104can share the processing. For example, the user system 102 may include asoftware application that allows the user system to create a reportrequest without assistance from the host system 104. The user system 102would then contact the host system 104 to generate the report.Alternatively, the host system 104 may provide an application to theuser system 102 (e.g., an applet) once the user system 102 contacts thehost system 104. Accordingly, processing can be shared by the twosystems.

[0031] As described above, the present invention can be embodied in theform of computer-implemented processes and apparatuses for practicingthose processes. The present invention can also be embodied in the formof computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangiblemedia, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any othercomputer-readable medium, wherein, when the computer program code isloaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes anapparatus for practicing the invention. The present invention can alsobe embodied in the form of computer program code, for example, whetherstored in a storage medium, loaded into and/or executed by a computer ortransmitted over some transmission medium, such as over electricalwiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via electromagneticradiation, wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into andexecuted by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicingthe invention. When implemented on a general-purpose microprocessor, thecomputer program code segments configure the microprocessor to createspecific logic circuits.

[0032] It will be evident to those skilled in the art that the presentinvention provides many improvements over the current state of the artof performing automated independent technical reviews. Using thisinvention will eliminate human error in the independent review process,create a more consistent review process, create a more reliable reviewprocess, and provide a more consistent review process.

[0033] While the invention has been described with reference toexemplary embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the artthat various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted forelements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. Inaddition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situationto the teachings of the invention without departing from the essentialscope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not belimited to the particular embodiments for carrying out this invention,but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within thescope of the appended claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for automated independent technicalreview, the method comprising: receiving an assay result of aradioactive waste container; generating a review template; determiningwhether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter based onsaid generating said review template; determining whether a review isrequired if said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter; and rejecting said assay result if said review is notrequired and said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said assay result is agamma radiation assay result.
 3. The method of claim 1, furtherincluding generating a comment template if said review is required. 4.The method of claim 1, wherein said generating said review templateincludes: generating an assay result data field including said assayresult; generating a requirements field including said predeterminedparameter; generating a review field including a first instruction basedon said determining whether said review is required; and generating arejection field including a second instruction based on said determiningwhether said review is required.
 5. The method of claim 1, furtherincluding: determining the identity of a material in said radioactivewaste container; and determining whether said assay result is acceptablebased on said identity of said material.
 6. The method of claim 1,wherein said determining whether said assay result is within saidpredetermined parameter includes determining whether a relative errorfor a plutonium isotope is within said predetermined parameter.
 7. Themethod of claim 6, wherein said determining whether a relative error fora plutonium isotope is within said predetermined parameter includes:determining an absolute 3-sigma error for said plutonium isotope;determining a range for the weight percent of said plutonium isotopebased on said absolute 3-sigma error; and determining that said assayresult is not within said predetermined parameter if an accepted weaponsgrade weight percent is not within said range.
 8. The method of claim 6,further including using a default isotopic if no measurement for saidplutonium isotope is available.
 9. The method of claim 6, wherein saiddetermining whether said relative error for said plutonium isotope iswithin said predetermined parameter includes using a default isotopicparameter if said relative error is greater than about 70 percent. 10.The method of claim 9, wherein said relative error is based on aplutonium isotope for Pu²⁴⁰.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein saiddetermining whether said assay result is within said predeterminedparameter includes determining whether the density of said radioactivewaste container is within said predetermined parameter.
 12. The methodof claim 11, wherein said determining whether said density of saidradioactive waste container is within said predetermined parameterincludes determining that said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter if said density is greater than about 2.5 gramsper cubic centimeter.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein saiddetermining whether said assay result is within said predeterminedparameter includes determining whether a radioactive material in saidradioactive waste container is lumped.
 14. The method of claim 13,wherein said determining whether said radioactive material in saidradioactive waste container is lumped includes comparing the ratio oftwo gamma energies.
 15. The method of claim 14, wherein said comparingthe ratio of said two gamma energies includes: determining the ratio ofa 413.71 keV gamma energy to a 129.294 keV gamma energy; determiningthat said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter ifsaid ratio is greater than about 2.5.
 16. The method of claim 1, whereinsaid determining whether said assay result is within said predeterminedparameter includes comparing a total plutonium mass result to aqualification mass value.
 17. The method of claim 16, wherein saidcomparing includes: comparing said total plutonium mass result to a lowqualification mass value; determining that said assay result is notwithin said predetermined parameter if said total plutonium mass resultis less than said low qualification mass; comparing said total plutoniummass result to a high qualification mass value; and determining thatsaid assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if saidtotal plutonium mass result is greater than said high qualification massvalue.
 18. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether saidassay result is within said predetermined parameter includes determiningthat said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter if atotal plutonium weight percent is greater than about 10 percent.
 19. Themethod of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result iswithin said predetermined parameter includes determining that said assayresult is not within said predetermined parameter if a criticalitysafety value is greater than about 220 grams.
 20. The method of claim 1,wherein said determining whether said assay result is within saidpredetermined parameter includes determining that said assay result isnot within said predetermined parameter if a fissile gram equivalent at2 sigma is greater than about 220 grams.
 21. The method of claim 1,wherein said determining whether said assay result is within saidpredetermined parameter includes using a nuclide total result to comparea mass ratio of a first isotope and a second isotope.
 22. The method ofclaim 21 wherein said first isotope is Pu²³⁹ and said second isotope isAm²⁴¹.
 23. The method of claim 22 wherein said using a nuclide totalresult to compare said mass ratio of a first isotope and a secondisotope includes determining that said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter if said mass ratio is less than about
 200. 24.The method of claim 21 wherein said first isotope is Pu 239 and saidsecond isotope is Np²³⁷.
 25. The method of claim 24 wherein said using anuclide total result to compare said mass ratio of a first isotope and asecond isotope includes determining that said assay result is not withinsaid predetermined parameter if said mass ratio is less than about 125.26. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assayresult is within said predetermined parameter includes determining anuclide totals result for an isotope.
 27. The method of claim 26,wherein said isotope is Np²³⁷.
 28. The method of claim 27, wherein saiddetermining said nuclide totals result is not performed for said isotopeif the presence of said isotope is confirmed.
 29. The method of claim26, wherein said isotope is U²³⁵.
 30. The method of claim 29, whereinsaid determining said nuclide totals result is not performed for saidisotope if the presence of said isotope is confirmed.
 31. The method ofclaim 26, wherein said isotope is U²³³.
 32. The method of claim 26,wherein said isotope is U²³⁸.
 33. The method of claim 26, wherein saiddetermining whether said assay result is within said predeterminedparameter includes determining that said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter if a count rate corresponding to said isotope isgreater than about 5 times an error value.
 34. The method of claim 1,wherein said determining whether said assay result is within saidpredetermined parameter includes determining that said assay result isnot within said predetermined parameter if a 400 keV transmission sourcepeak intensity is less than about 1 percent of a calibrated intensity.35. The method of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assayresult is within said predetermined parameter includes: defining asegment of said radioactive waste container; determining whether atransmission source peak for said segment of said radioactive wastecontainer is a low transmission source peak having an energy of lessthan about 400 keV; and determining that said assay result is withinsaid predetermined parameter if said low transmission source peak isgreater than about 0.1 percent of a calibrated intensity.
 36. The methodof claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result is withinsaid predetermined parameter includes: detecting the presence of apulser peak; determining that said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter if said pulser peak is not detected; anddetermining that said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter if a total number of counts in said pulser peak is less thanabout 3,000 counts.
 37. The method of claim 1, wherein said determiningwhether said assay result is within said predetermined parameterincludes: detecting the presence of a reference source peak; determiningthat said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter ifsaid reference source peak is not detected; and determining that saidassay result is not within said predetermined parameter if a totalnumber of counts in said reference source peak is less than about 50percent of a calibrated rate.
 38. The method of claim 1, wherein saiddetermining whether said assay result is within said predeterminedparameter includes: defining a segment of said radioactive wastecontainer; determining a live time result for said segment; determininga real time result for said segment; and determining that said assayresult is not within said predetermined parameter if said live timeresult divided by said real time result is less than about 0.3.
 39. Themethod of claim 1, wherein said determining whether said assay result iswithin said predetermined parameter includes: defining a first segmentand a second segment of said radioactive waste container; detecting afirst radioactivity level of said first segment; detecting a secondradioactivity level of said second segment; detecting a totalradioactivity level of said radioactive waste container; and determiningthat said assay result is not within said predetermined parameter ifsaid first radioactivity level and said second radioactivity levelcombined is greater than about 50 percent of said total radioactivitylevel.
 40. The method of claim 39, wherein said first segment is at abottom end of said radioactive waste container.
 41. The method of claim40, wherein said first segment is disposed against said second segment.42. A method for automated independent technical review, the methodcomprising: receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste containercontaining a radioactive material; determining a relative error for aplutonium isotope based on said assay result; determining whether saidrelative error is within a first predetermined parameter; determiningwhether a first review is required if said relative error is not withinsaid first predetermined parameter; rejecting said assay result if saidfirst review is not required and said relative error is not within saidfirst predetermined parameter; determining whether said radioactivematerial is lumped; and determining whether a second review is requiredif said radioactive material is lumped.
 43. A method for automatedindependent technical review, the method comprising: receiving an assayresult of a radioactive waste container containing a radioactivematerial; determining a total plutonium weight percent based on saidassay result; rejecting said assay result if said total plutonium weightpercent is greater than about 10 percent; determining criticality safetyvalue based on said assay result; and rejecting said assay result ifsaid criticality safety value is greater than about 220 grams.
 44. Amethod for automated independent technical review, the methodcomprising: receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste containercontaining a radioactive material; determining that said assay resultrequires a review if the ratio of a Pu²³⁹ isotope and a Am²⁴¹ isotope iscompared by using a nuclide total result and said ratio is less thanabout 200; determining that said assay result requires a review if theratio of a Pu239 isotope and a Np²³⁷ isotope is compared by using anuclide total result and said ratio is less than about 125; anddetermining that said assay result requires a review if a count ratecorresponding to an U isotope is greater than about 5 times an errorvalue.
 45. A method for automated independent technical review, themethod comprising: receiving an assay result of a radioactive wastecontainer; determining whether said assay result is within apredetermined parameter; determining whether a review is required ifsaid assay result is not within said predetermined parameter; andrejecting said assay result if said review is not required and saidassay result is not within said predetermined parameter.
 46. A systemfor automated independent technical review, the system comprising: ahost system for receiving an assay result of a radioactive wastecontainer, generating a review template, determining whether said assayresult is within a predetermined parameter based on said generating saidreview template, determining whether a review is required if said assayresult is not within said predetermined parameter and rejecting saidassay result if said review is not required and said assay result is notwithin said predetermined parameter; a network coupled to said hostsystem; and a database coupled to said host system for storing datarelating to said automated independent technical review.
 47. The systemof claim 46, further including: a user system coupled to said network;and said user system accessing said host system via said network.
 48. Asystem for automated independent technical review, the systemcomprising: a host system for receiving an assay result of a radioactivewaste container containing a radioactive material, determining arelative error for a plutonium isotope based on said assay result,determining whether said relative error is within a first predeterminedparameter, determining whether a first review is required if saidrelative error is not within said first predetermined parameter,rejecting said assay result if said first review is not required andsaid relative error is not within said first predetermined parameter,determining whether said radioactive material is lumped and determiningwhether a second review is required if said radioactive material islumped; a network coupled to said host system; and a database coupled tosaid host system for storing data relating to said automated independenttechnical review.
 49. A system for automated independent technicalreview, the system comprising: a host system for receiving an assayresult of a radioactive waste container containing a radioactivematerial, determining a total plutonium weight percent based on saidassay result, rejecting said assay result if said total plutonium weightpercent is greater than about 10 percent, determining criticality safetyvalue based on said assay result and rejecting said assay result if saidcriticality safety value is greater than about 220 grams; a networkcoupled to said host system; and a database coupled to said host systemfor storing data relating to said automated independent technicalreview.
 50. A system for automated independent technical review, thesystem comprising: a host system for receiving an assay result of aradioactive waste container containing a radioactive material,determining that said assay result requires a review if the ratio of aPu²³⁹ isotope and a Am²⁴¹ isotope is compared by using a nuclide totalresult and said ratio is less than about 200, determining that saidassay result requires a review if the ratio of a Pu²³⁹ isotope and aNp²³⁷ isotope is compared by using a nuclide total result and said ratiois less than about 125 and determining that said assay result requires areview if a count rate corresponding to an U²³³ isotope is greater thanabout 5 times an error value; a network coupled to said host system; anda database coupled to said host system for storing data relating to saidautomated independent technical review.
 51. A system for automatedindependent technical review, the system comprising: a host system forreceiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container, determiningwhether said assay result is within a predetermined parameter,determining whether a review is required if said assay result is notwithin said predetermined parameter and rejecting said assay result ifsaid review is not required and said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter; a network coupled to said host system; and adatabase coupled to said host system for storing data relating to saidautomated independent technical review.
 52. A storage medium encodedwith machine-readable computer program code for automated independenttechnical review, the storage medium including instructions for causinga processor to implement a method comprising: receiving an assay resultof a radioactive waste container; generating a review template;determining whether said assay result is within a predeterminedparameter based on said generating said review template; determiningwhether a review is required if said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter; and rejecting said assay result if said reviewis not required and said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter.
 53. A storage medium encoded with machine-readable computerprogram code for automated independent technical review, the storagemedium including instructions for causing a processor to implement amethod comprising: receiving an assay result of a radioactive wastecontainer containing a radioactive material; determining a relativeerror for a plutonium isotope based on said assay result; determiningwhether said relative error is within a first predetermined parameter;determining whether a first review is required if said relative error isnot within said first predetermined parameter; rejecting said assayresult if said first review is not required and said relative error isnot within said first predetermined parameter; determining whether saidradioactive material is lumped; and determining whether a second reviewis required if said radioactive material is lumped.
 54. A storage mediumencoded with machine-readable computer program code for automatedindependent technical review, the storage medium including instructionsfor causing a processor to implement a method comprising: receiving anassay result of a radioactive waste container containing a radioactivematerial; determining a total plutonium weight percent based on saidassay result; rejecting said assay result if said total plutonium weightpercent is greater than about 10 percent; determining criticality safetyvalue based on said assay result; and rejecting said assay result ifsaid criticality safety value is greater than about 220 grams.
 55. Astorage medium encoded with machine-readable computer program code forautomated independent technical review, the storage medium includinginstructions for causing a processor to implement a method comprising:receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container containing aradioactive material; determining that said assay result requires areview if the ratio of a Pu²³⁹ isotope and a AM²⁴¹ isotope is comparedby using a nuclide total result and said ratio is less than about 200;determining that said assay result requires a review if the ratio of aPu²³⁹ isotope and a Np²³⁷ isotope is compared by using a nuclide totalresult and said ratio is less than about 125; and determining that saidassay result requires a review if a count rate corresponding to an Uisotope is greater than about 5 times an error value.
 56. A storagemedium encoded with machine-readable computer program code for automatedindependent technical review, the storage medium including instructionsfor causing a processor to implement a method comprising: receiving anassay result of a radioactive waste container; determining whether saidassay result is within a predetermined parameter; determining whether areview is required if said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter; and rejecting said assay result if said review is notrequired and said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter.
 57. A computer data signal for automated independenttechnical review, the computer data signal comprising code configured tocause a processor to implement a method comprising: receiving an assayresult of a radioactive waste container; generating a review template;determining whether said assay result is within a predeterminedparameter based on said generating said review template; determiningwhether a review is required if said assay result is not within saidpredetermined parameter; and rejecting said assay result if said reviewis not required and said assay result is not within said predeterminedparameter.
 58. A computer data signal for automated independenttechnical review, the computer data signal comprising code configured tocause a processor to implement a method comprising: receiving an assayresult of a radioactive waste container containing a radioactivematerial; determining a relative error for a plutonium isotope based onsaid assay result; determining whether said relative error is within afirst predetermined parameter; determining whether a first review isrequired if said relative error is not within said first predeterminedparameter; rejecting said assay result if said first review is notrequired and said relative error is not within said first predeterminedparameter; determining whether said radioactive material is lumped; anddetermining whether a second review is required if said radioactivematerial is lumped.
 59. A computer data signal for automated independenttechnical review, the computer data signal comprising code configured tocause a processor to implement a method comprising: receiving an assayresult of a radioactive waste container containing a radioactivematerial; determining a total plutonium weight percent based on saidassay result; rejecting said assay result if said total plutonium weightpercent is greater than about 10 percent; determining criticality safetyvalue based on said assay result; and rejecting said assay result ifsaid criticality safety value is greater than about 220 grams.
 60. Acomputer data signal for automated independent technical review, thecomputer data signal comprising code configured to cause a processor toimplement a method comprising: receiving an assay result of aradioactive waste container containing a radioactive material;determining that said assay result requires a review if the ratio of aPu²³⁹ isotope and a Am²⁴¹ isotope is compared by using a nuclide totalresult and said ratio is less than about 200; determining that saidassay result requires a review if the ratio of a Pu²³⁹ isotope and aNp²³⁷ isotope is compared by using a nuclide total result and said ratiois less than about 125; and determining that said assay result requiresa review if a count rate corresponding to an U²³³ isotope is greaterthan about 5 times an error value.
 61. A computer data signal forautomated independent technical review, the computer data signalcomprising code configured to cause a processor to implement a methodcomprising: receiving an assay result of a radioactive waste container;determining whether said assay result is within a predeterminedparameter; determining whether a review is required if said assay resultis not within said predetermined parameter; and rejecting said assayresult if said review is not required and said assay result is notwithin said predetermined parameter.